1991 PLP 1639 (SCMR)
UMER MIAN — Appellant Versus PHOOL SHAH and another — Respondents
| Citation | 1991 PLP 1639 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Ali Hussain Qazilbash, Ajmal Mian and Saleem Akhtar, JJ |
| Parties | UMER MIAN — Appellant Versus PHOOL SHAH and another — Respondents |
| Primary Law | (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860), (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1991 PLP 1639 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860), (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1991 PLP 1639 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Ali Hussain Qazilbash, Ajmal Mian and Saleem Akhtar, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1991 PLP 1639 (SCMR) (UMER MIAN — Appellant Versus PHOOL SHAH and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Azizullah K. Shaikh, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Abdul Aziz Dastgir, Advocate-on-Record for Appellant.
- Sardar Muhammad Ishaq, Advocate Supreme Court and M. A. Qarni, Advocate-on-Record for Respondent No.1.
- S. M. Abbas, Advocate-on-Record for Respondent No.2.
- Date of hearing: 30th April, 1991.
- Azizullah K. Shaikh, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Abdul Aziz Dastgir, Advocate‑on‑Record for Appellant.
- Sardar Muhammad Ishaq, Advocate Supreme Court and M. A. Qarni, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent No.1.
- S. M. Abbas, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent No.2.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment dated 10-12-1983 of the High Court of Sindh, Bench at Sukkur passed in Cr. A. No.101 of 1982).
S.467/34
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)
Leave to appeal was granted to consider whether in the background of dispute and the evidence led at the trial, order by High Court acquitting the accused was proper.
S.467/34
Accused alleged to have forged and got registered a power of attorney purported to have been executed by the complainant
None of the marginal witnesses of power of attorney was examined nor effort was made to summon and produce them
Neither case was sent to Handwriting Expert to obtain his opinion about the signatures of executants on the power of attorney, nor any of the vendees alleged to have entered into agreement to sell with the accused was produced to support the case of complainant
Case was supported by the co-accused only and conviction could not be based on statement of co-accused
Accused was thus rightly acquitted by High Court.
Judgment & Decree
ALI HUSSAIN QAZILBASH, J: ‑‑This appeal by leave arises from the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Sindh dated 10‑12‑1983.
2. Phool Shah and Amanur Rehman, the acquitted accused, were charged under section 467/34, P.P.C. on a private complaint lodged by one Umer Mian. It was alleged in the complaint that the appellant in conspiracy with Amanur Rehman, the acquitted accused, forged and got registered a power of attorney purported to have been executed by the complainant, his brother Yousaf Ali and Mst. Rahim Bai widow of his brother Akbar Ali. Under the power of attorney the respondent was inter alia authorised to sell the lands of the executants situate in two Dehs. According to the complainant, the respondent on the strength of the said power of attorney entered into a conspiracy with Muhammad Paryal, Muhammad Ibrahim, Shaffan, Abdul Hakeem, Khan Muhammad, Muhammad Paneh, Sher Muhammad and Mahiwal and sold to them the said land specified in the list attached with the complaint. This sale‑deed was presented to the Sub -Registrar Hyderabad on 2‑10‑1976 when the respondent and his co‑accused produced fake persons personating for aforesaid executants.
3. After holding the preliminary enquiry the Court issued process against the respondent and Amanur Rehman, the acquitted co‑accused. After the conclusion of trial Amanur Rehman was acquitted but the respondent was convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge IInd Larkana under sections 467 and 471, P.P.C. and vide judgment dated 7‑11‑1982 sentenced the respondent to 5 years R.1. and a fine of Rs.1,000 or in default to 6 months' R.I. on both counts. The sentence of imprisonment on both counts was, however, ordered to run concurrently. The trial Court also ordered that the fine on realisation be paid to the complainant as compensation under section 544‑A, Cr.P.C.
4. The respondent filed appeal in the High Court against his conviction and sentence which was allowed as per the impugned judgment dated 10‑12‑1983.
5. Leave was granted to consider whether in the background of dispute an the evidence led at the trial the order by the High Court acquitting the respondent was proper.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the judgments of the Courts. below.
7. Considering the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant in the light of the order of the learned Single Judge, we are of the view that the order of acquittal passed in this case needs no interference. The perusal of the record in this case shows that none of the marginal witnesses was examined in this case for no effort was made by the complainant to summon and produce the marginal witnesses of the power of attorney. Further, neither the case was sent to the handwriting expert to obtain his opinion about the signatures of the executants on the power of attorney nor any of the vendees alleged to have entered into an agreement to sell with the respondent was produced to support the case of the appellant. The only person who has supported the case of the complainant in this case is the co‑accused namely Amanur Rehman. Obviously no conviction can be based on the statement of the co‑accused in a criminal case.
8. In view of the above, this appeal has no merit and the same is dismissed The bailable warrants are hereby recalled. M.A.K./U‑37/S Appeal dismissed.